Marine traffic

Table S1. Summary of 2019 marine traffic within the lower Kitimat Fjord System, as reported by archival AIS data.
Speed (kn)
Length (m)
Beam (m)
Draft (m)
Type VIDs Transits mean sd max mean sd min max mean sd min max mean sd min max
Cargo ship 54 157 12.7 1.7 17.1 159 53 26 200 26 8 7 33 8.2 2.6 3.0 11.0
Cargo ship:DG,HS,MP(X) 1 2 11.9 0.7 13.7 67 0 67 67 13 0 13 13 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0
Diving op. 1 4 7.8 0.7 10.0 10 0 10 10 4 0 4 4 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5
Dredging or underwater op. 3 36 9.7 2.4 15.0 63 34 35 119 14 6 9 22 4.4 0.5 4.0 5.0
Fishing 308 829 8.4 3.2 32.2 20 9 6 100 6 2 1 20 1.5 1.2 0.4 10.0
HSC 3 8 13.0 8.1 28.6 25 13 7 35 7 3 3 10 2.6 1.7 0.4 4.0
Law enforcement 3 3 9.7 1.5 12.6 42 16 26 68 8 3 6 14 2.8 0.8 2.0 4.0
Local ship 2 10 12.4 6.5 26.5 13 4 10 18 4 0 4 5 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.9
Military op. 1 4 9.1 2.4 15.0 33 0 33 33 8 0 8 8 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0
Other 22 78 8.6 2.4 24.9 37 22 6 76 9 5 2 20 3.3 1.9 0.3 6.0
Passenger ship 58 803 15.1 5.7 35.6 108 75 11 301 18 10 3 36 4.0 2.2 0.6 8.0
Passenger ship:DG,HS,MP(Y) 1 2 11.1 0.4 11.8 64 0 64 64 12 0 12 12 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0
Pilot 2 6 19.9 3.1 25.8 19 1 17 20 4 1 3 5 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
Pleasure Craft 275 1213 8.2 3.7 37.5 20 16 7 154 6 3 1 18 1.1 1.0 0.4 9.0
Port tender 1 2 7.4 1.1 8.8 26 0 26 26 8 0 8 8 8.0 0.0 8.0 8.0
Sailing 117 426 6.0 1.3 12.6 14 4 8 35 4 1 1 8 0.7 0.3 0.4 3.0
Search/rescue 14 193 10.3 4.0 39.2 52 15 7 83 11 3 2 17 4.6 1.0 0.4 6.0
Tanker 2 7 12.1 0.8 13.9 141 5 134 145 24 0 24 24 8.7 0.5 8.0 9.0
Towing 36 356 7.0 1.7 21.7 27 21 6 162 8 3 4 24 3.3 1.8 0.3 7.0
Towing(200/25) 42 382 8.8 1.6 13.7 32 6 12 41 10 2 2 12 4.7 1.4 1.7 7.0
Tug 62 873 7.4 1.8 13.9 27 28 11 178 8 3 4 22 3.1 1.8 0.6 6.0

 

Table S2. AIS traffic within the study area in 2019, grouped into 10 vessel classes.
Speed (kn)
Length (m)
Beam (m)
Draft (m)
Vessel type IDs Transits Transits/day mean sd max mean sd min max mean sd min max mean sd min max
Cargo > 180m 38 94 0.26 13.1 1.4 17.1 193 7 180 200 31 1 28 33 9.5 1.7 6.0 11
Fishing < 60m 305 822 2.25 8.4 3.2 32.2 20 7 6 54 6 2 1 15 1.4 1.1 0.4 10
Other < 40m 70 565 1.55 11.5 7.2 39.2 23 9 6 40 6 2 2 10 1.8 1.4 0.3 8
Other > 100m 23 378 1.04 16.0 3.4 23.0 142 18 116 179 23 3 4 29 5.3 1.1 3.0 10
Other > 40m 46 340 0.93 9.5 2.6 16.6 57 14 42 100 13 3 7 22 3.9 1.3 2.0 6
Passenger > 180m 6 73 0.20 17.4 3.4 23.3 259 39 197 301 32 2 28 36 7.8 0.4 7.0 8
Pleasurecraft < 40m 263 1123 3.08 8.1 3.8 37.5 16 5 7 37 5 1 1 14 0.9 0.7 0.4 9
Sailing 117 426 1.17 6.0 1.3 12.6 14 4 8 35 4 1 1 8 0.7 0.3 0.4 3
Towing < 50m 74 738 2.02 8.0 1.9 21.7 29 9 6 41 9 2 2 12 4.1 1.7 0.3 7
Tug < 50m 61 835 2.29 7.3 1.8 13.9 22 8 11 41 7 2 4 12 3.0 1.8 0.6 6

 

Table S3. AIS traffic in 2019, restricted to prime fin whale habitat in Squally Channel, including Lewis Passage and north Campania Sound (W 129.4519 - 129.26239, N 53.069 - 53.3218)
type vids fixes transits transit_rate dates_present present_rate speed_mn speed_sd speed_max length_mn length_sd length_min length_max beam_mn beam_sd beam_min beam_max draft_mn draft_sd draft_min draft_max
Cargo > 180m 4 82 4 0.01 4 0.01 12.4 1.6 14.6 187 8 180 200 31 1 30 32 10.2 0.9 9.0 11
Fishing < 60m 30 1889 75 0.21 56 0.15 8.2 4.3 32.2 17 6 10 37 6 2 4 12 1.2 0.9 0.5 6
Other < 40m 6 387 20 0.05 20 0.05 8.8 4.9 31.5 26 8 7 40 6 2 2 9 2.0 1.7 0.4 5
Other > 100m 5 172 9 0.02 9 0.02 10.4 2.0 13.5 157 19 134 178 18 8 4 29 6.6 1.6 4.0 9
Other > 40m 13 1018 59 0.16 57 0.16 9.5 2.4 15.0 55 14 42 98 13 3 9 22 3.9 1.4 2.0 6
Passenger > 180m 5 369 19 0.05 19 0.05 18.1 2.5 22.0 270 39 197 301 33 1 28 34 7.8 0.4 7.0 8
Pleasurecraft < 40m 70 2295 142 0.39 87 0.24 7.4 3.6 34.4 15 5 7 28 5 1 2 7 0.7 0.2 0.4 2
Sailing 17 766 35 0.10 32 0.09 5.6 1.4 9.0 15 5 8 32 4 2 2 8 0.8 0.4 0.4 3
Towing < 50m 14 803 40 0.11 39 0.11 9.2 1.4 11.8 34 4 26 41 10 2 6 12 5.2 1.2 1.7 6
Tug < 50m 17 1594 74 0.20 62 0.17 7.1 1.9 11.2 23 9 12 41 8 2 4 12 3.2 1.7 0.6 6

 

Figure S1. Length distributions of the ten vessel classes used to summarize marine traffic in 2019.

Figure S1. Length distributions of the ten vessel classes used to summarize marine traffic in 2019.

 

Figure S2. Speed distributions, in knots, of the ten vessel classes used to summarize marine traffic in 2019.

Figure S2. Speed distributions, in knots, of the ten vessel classes used to summarize marine traffic in 2019.

 

Figure S3.

Figure S3.

 

Figure S4.

Figure S4.

 

Table S4. Trends (historical and predicted) in AIS traffic, 2014 - 2030.
type km_2014 km_2015 km_2018 km_2019 km_2030 scale_factor rate_2019 rate_2030 pvalue
Cargo > 180m 0 0 0 9444 16943 1.79 0.15 0.08 0.30
Fishing < 60m 17165 16377 31949 45784 86437 1.89 0.12 0.06 0.05
Other < 40m 62201 87269 57399 18723 0 0.00 -0.48 -0.24 0.24
Other > 100m 25213 19011 27281 26166 33552 1.28 0.03 0.03 0.44
Other > 40m 27391 9943 23408 29184 37725 1.29 0.05 0.04 0.60
Passenger > 180m 6212 5489 10403 6168 11554 1.87 0.07 0.04 0.55
Pleasurecraft < 40m 0 0 56 51215 91952 1.80 0.15 0.08 0.30
Sailing 357 1553 12538 20934 50795 2.43 0.19 0.08 0.02
Towing < 50m 35311 15299 39409 42838 67175 1.57 0.08 0.05 0.38
Tug < 50m 30971 44685 46344 43301 61901 1.43 0.05 0.03 0.33

 

Figure S5.

Figure S5.

 

Table S1.x. Dimensions of the LNG Canada fleet, adapted from TERMPOL (2015). Note that in our analyses, we reduced the max Shell length to 298m, and the beam was adjusted according to the original length:beam ratio.


Methods details

Line-transect surveys

Table S5. Effort and sighting details from line-trasect surveys within the Kitimat Fjord Surveys, 2013 - 2015.
Effort
Fin whales
Humpback whales
Year segments km total valid total valid
2013 143 712.5204 8 6 68 38
2014 168 800.5337 18 17 134 130
2015 402 2083.1364 19 19 253 251
 

Figure S6. (a) Design-based line-transect survey effort throughout the central Gitga’at waters of the Kitimat Fjord System (each dot is the center of a 5-km segment of systematic effort), yielding detections of (b) fin whales and (c) humpback whales. Detection dot size reflects group size

 

Table S6. Best-fitting models of the detection functions for fin whales and humpback whales, based upon 2013-2015 line-transect surveys.
Species Model Key function Formula C-vM p-value \(\hat{P_a}\) se(\(\hat{P_a}\)) \(\Delta\)AIC
1 Fin whale 1 Half-normal ~1 0.8405095 0.5500191 0.0742873 0.0000000
3 2 Half-normal ~1 + factor(year) 0.7815848 0.5231299 0.0742940 0.3047398
2 3 Half-normal ~1 + bft 0.8250065 0.5465154 0.0793721 1.5958236
31 Humpback whale 1 Half-normal ~1 + factor(year) 0.9652267 0.5204825 0.0213641 0.0000000
21 2 Half-normal ~1 + bft 0.9637787 0.5296131 0.0215150 9.0061244
11 3 Half-normal ~1 0.9430440 0.5364511 0.0213979 15.9211900

 

Figure S7. Detection functions.

Figure S7. Detection functions.

 

Figure S8. Bathymetric characteristics of the study area, as summarized for the square-kilometer grid used in density surface modeling.  

Fin whale dive tag analysis

Figure S9. Raw time- and depth-distributions of depth sensor readings for each of the 7 SPLASH-10 tag deployments.

Figure S9. Raw time- and depth-distributions of depth sensor readings for each of the 7 SPLASH-10 tag deployments.

 

Figure S10. Time distribution (hour of day, color-coded by daytime/nighttime) of depth samples from SPLASH10 tags.

Figure S10. Time distribution (hour of day, color-coded by daytime/nighttime) of depth samples from SPLASH10 tags.

 

Summary of SPLASH10 depth data used in fin whale depth distribution analysis.
id deploy_ptt start stop span hours n n_day n_night frac_valid
1 132219-132219 2013-08-19 23:00:00 2013-08-24 20:58:45 117.97917 8.00000 384 336 48 0.07
2 132220-132220 2013-08-18 18:47:30 2013-08-28 19:57:30 241.16667 26.18750 1257 837 420 0.11
3 137684-137684 2014-08-16 00:15:00 2014-08-16 23:57:30 23.70833 23.72917 1139 835 304 1.00
4 137685-137685 2014-08-20 18:22:30 2014-09-04 21:58:45 363.60417 45.62500 2190 1720 470 0.13
5 137686-137686 2014-08-23 16:30:00 2014-09-02 13:57:30 237.45833 18.47917 887 792 95 0.08
6 142546-142546 2014-09-08 19:00:00 2014-09-28 23:58:45 484.97917 82.00000 3936 2468 1468 0.17
7 142547-142547 2014-09-14 00:00:00 2014-09-14 10:58:45 10.97917 4.00000 192 96 96 0.36

 

Figure S11. Daytime (left) and nighttime (right) depth distribution curves, representing the proportion of time spent above a given depth, for six SPLASH-10 deployments on fin whales (colored lines).

Figure S11. Daytime (left) and nighttime (right) depth distribution curves, representing the proportion of time spent above a given depth, for six SPLASH-10 deployments on fin whales (colored lines).

 

Collision & mortality analysis

 

Figure S12. Probabilities of collision (left) and mortality (right) as a function of ship speed (>180m length), adapted from Gende et al. (2011).

Figure S12. Probabilities of collision (left) and mortality (right) as a function of ship speed (>180m length), adapted from Gende et al. (2011).

Potential Biological Removal

Fin whales – Canadian Pacific stock (Wright et al. 2022):

pbr(N = 2893, CV = 0.15) %>% cbind
##         .       
## PBR     15.70251
## Nmin    785.1253
## Rmax    0.08    
## Fr      0.5     
## Nmedian 2953.024

Fin whales – North Coast Sector (Wright et al. 2022):

pbr(N = 161, CV = 0.50)  %>% cbind
##         .       
## PBR     1.258035
## Nmin    62.90175
## Rmax    0.08    
## Fr      0.5     
## Nmedian 160.7847

Fin whales – coastal (Queen Charlotte, Hecate Strait) (Nichol et al 2017):

pbr(N = 405, CV = 0.6)  %>% cbind
##         .       
## PBR     2.74874 
## Nmin    137.437 
## Rmax    0.08    
## Fr      0.5     
## Nmedian 402.2371

Humpback whales – Canadian Pacific stock (Wright et al. 2022):

pbr(N = 7030, CV = 0.1)  %>% cbind
##         .       
## PBR     35.48395
## Nmin    1774.198
## Rmax    0.08    
## Fr      0.5     
## Nmedian 7093.933

Humpback whales – North Coast sector (Wright et al. 2022):

pbr(N = 1816, CV = 0.13)  %>% cbind
##         .       
## PBR     10.27211
## Nmin    513.6057
## Rmax    0.08    
## Fr      0.5     
## Nmedian 1826.804

Results details

Vessel traffic

Figure S13. Distribution of 2019 marine traffic parsed by waterway and time of day.

Figure S13. Distribution of 2019 marine traffic parsed by waterway and time of day.

 

Figure S14. Monthly distribution of 2019 marine traffic, parsed by time of day.

Figure S14. Monthly distribution of 2019 marine traffic, parsed by time of day.

 

Figure S15. Counts of AIS location fixes for 10 vessel types in 2019, displayed for each waterway in the study area separately.

Figure S15. Counts of AIS location fixes for 10 vessel types in 2019, displayed for each waterway in the study area separately.

 

Species distribution models

Best-fitting density surface models for fin whales and humpback whales for mid-June – early-September.
Species Formula Trunc. dist. Family Link function Delta AIC Deviance explained
Fin whale (Lat x Lon) + seafloor depth + seafloor range 2.0 km Tweedie log 104 54%
Humpback whale (Lat x Lon x DOY) + seafloor depth + seafloor range + year 2.7 km Tweedie log 14 51%

 

Table S7. Fin whale density (95% confidence interval) by waterway (whales per square km), , as estimated from the best-fitting density surface model. Confidence intervals are estimated using a bootstrap procedure.
Waterway Season
Caamano 0.022 (0-0.126)
Campania 0.024 (0-0.148)
Estevan 0 (0-0)
McKay 0 (0-0)
Squally 0.031 (0-0.169)
Verney 0 (0-0)
Whale 0 (0-0)
Wright 0 (0-0)
Study area 0.014 (0-0.118)
Table S8. Humpback whale density (95% confidence interval) by waterway (whales per square km), , as estimated from the best-fitting density surface model. Confidence intervals are estimated using a bootstrap procedure.
Waterway Season June July August September
Caamano 0.059 (0.012-0.153) 0.119 (0.006-0.74) 0.057 (0.006-0.113) 0.046 (0.005-0.094) 0.049 (0.013-0.139)
Campania 0.07 (0.012-0.139) 0.056 (0.001-0.131) 0.063 (0.01-0.158) 0.071 (0.007-0.186) 0.097 (0.015-0.249)
Estevan 0.037 (0.004-0.071) 0.119 (0.006-0.153) 0.021 (0.001-0.024) 0.046 (0.006-0.121) 0.047 (0.008-0.107)
McKay 0.049 (0.003-0.112) 0.007 (0.001-0.036) 0.02 (0.001-0.04) 0.068 (0-0.134) 0.102 (0.017-0.313)
Squally 0.11 (0.025-0.251) 0.132 (0.021-0.429) 0.041 (0.002-0.099) 0.161 (0.037-0.448) 0.102 (0.01-0.2)
Verney 0.072 (0.006-0.282) 0.006 (0-0.035) 0.029 (0.001-0.108) 0.085 (0.006-0.231) 0.154 (0.004-0.786)
Whale 0.113 (0.023-0.298) 0.03 (0.003-0.111) 0.015 (0.002-0.048) 0.196 (0.026-0.502) 0.165 (0.034-0.512)
Wright 0.117 (0.007-0.308) 0.033 (0-0.139) 0.081 (0.01-0.204) 0.164 (0.034-0.566) 0.154 (0-0.425)
Study area 0.079 (0.01-0.223) 0.083 (0.001-0.417) 0.046 (0.002-0.125) 0.1 (0.007-0.359) 0.095 (0.01-0.32)

 

Seasonality

Table S9. Summary of GAM of seasonal fin whale abundance. This model was used to scale the June-September density estimate.
Family Formula edf P-value of coefficient Deviance explained
Negative binomial count ~ s(doy, k=5) + offset(log(minutes)) 2.803 7e-04 26%

 

Close-encounter rates

Close encounter rate
Fin whales
Humpback whales
Vessel type Median Mean SD LCI UCI Median Mean SD LCI UCI FW - HW
Cargo > 180m 0.06 0.061 0.024 0.02 0.11 0.05 0.049 0.022 0.01 0.09 0.01
Cedar LNG tanker in-heel 0.08 0.086 0.030 0.04 0.15 0.07 0.070 0.027 0.03 0.12 0.01
Cedar LNG tanker in-product 0.08 0.086 0.031 0.03 0.14 0.07 0.070 0.025 0.02 0.12 0.01
Cedar LNG tug in-heel 0.02 0.024 0.015 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.016 0.012 0.00 0.04 0.01
Cedar LNG tug in-product 0.02 0.023 0.016 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.016 0.012 0.00 0.04 0.01
Fishing < 60m 0.02 0.023 0.015 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.016 0.013 0.00 0.05 0.01
LNG Canada tanker in-heel 0.09 0.087 0.026 0.04 0.14 0.07 0.071 0.025 0.03 0.12 0.02
LNG Canada tanker in-product 0.08 0.085 0.027 0.04 0.14 0.07 0.070 0.027 0.02 0.13 0.01
LNG Canada tug in-heel 0.02 0.024 0.014 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.015 0.012 0.00 0.04 0.01
LNG Canada tug in-product 0.02 0.022 0.015 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.017 0.013 0.00 0.05 0.01
Other < 40m 0.02 0.021 0.014 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.017 0.013 0.00 0.05 0.01
Other > 100m 0.04 0.046 0.021 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.038 0.018 0.01 0.07 0.00
Other > 40m 0.03 0.033 0.017 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.025 0.015 0.00 0.06 0.01
Passenger > 180m 0.06 0.061 0.023 0.02 0.11 0.05 0.052 0.023 0.01 0.10 0.01
Pleasurecraft < 40m 0.02 0.019 0.014 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.013 0.011 0.00 0.04 0.01
Sailing 0.02 0.019 0.013 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.014 0.012 0.00 0.04 0.01
Towing < 50m 0.02 0.024 0.015 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.019 0.013 0.00 0.05 0.00
Tug < 50m 0.02 0.024 0.015 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.019 0.013 0.00 0.05 0.00
Figure S16. caption

Figure S16. caption

 

Depth distribution

Table S10. Proportion of time fin whale spend above various depth cutoffs (1m, 2m, …, 30m), estimated for day and night separately based upon the mean and SD from six SPLASH-10 tag deployments.
Daytime
Nighttime
Depth (m) Mean SD Mean SD
1 8.7% 4.8% 8.3% 7.5%
2 14.4% 7.2% 18.1% 13.1%
5 26% 5.2% 41.1% 16.1%
10 37.1% 7.1% 59.2% 15.3%
15 47.5% 8% 72.1% 17%
20 55.4% 6.9% 82% 15.6%
25 60.9% 6.6% 85.3% 16%
30 63.3% 6.4% 89.5% 12.9%

 

Figure S17. Daytime (pink) and nighttime (teal) depth distribution curves for fin whale in and near the Kitimat Fjord System, representing the average proportion of time spent above a given depth across all tag deployments (n=6 in 2013 and 2014). Points on the left side of the plot represent the SD at each depth.

Figure S17. Daytime (pink) and nighttime (teal) depth distribution curves for fin whale in and near the Kitimat Fjord System, representing the average proportion of time spent above a given depth across all tag deployments (n=6 in 2013 and 2014). Points on the left side of the plot represent the SD at each depth.

 

Interaction rates

Table S11. Interaction rates.
Fin whales
Humpback whales
Traffic scheme Event Mean Median 95% CI 80% Conf. Mean Median 95% CI 80% Conf.
AIS 2019 Cooccurrence 509.21 509.0 471 - 549 488 5961.53 5962 5805 - 6113 5884.0
Close encounter 13.59 13.5 8 - 19 10 117.35 117 100 - 137 108.0
Strike-zone event 3.06 3.0 1 - 6 2 25.50 25 18 - 34 21.0
(1.5x draft) 3.00 3.0 0 - 6 2 25.50 26 17 - 34 21.0
AIS 2030 Cooccurrence 855.99 856.0 802 - 912 827 9419.83 9413 9220 - 9646 9312.8
Close encounter 22.79 22.5 16 - 31 19 183.13 183 161 - 205 171.0
Strike-zone event 4.89 5.0 2 - 9 3 39.23 39 30 - 49 34.0
(1.5x draft) 5.03 5.0 2 - 9 3 38.81 39 29 - 49 34.0
LNG Canada Cooccurrence 137.66 137.0 116 - 161 127 1711.94 1711 1636 - 1786 1673.0
Close encounter 7.20 7.0 3 - 12 5 73.08 73 59 - 88 66.0
Strike-zone event 3.01 3.0 0 - 6 1 30.75 30 22 - 40 26.0
(1.5x draft) 3.01 3.0 0 - 6 1 30.66 31 22 - 40 25.0
Cedar LNG Cooccurrence 19.40 19.0 13 - 27 16 236.24 237 211 - 260 223.0
Close encounter 1.06 1.0 0 - 3 0 10.02 10 5 - 15 7.0
Strike-zone event 0.44 0.0 0 - 2 0 4.48 4 1 - 8 3.0
(1.5x draft) 0.45 0.0 0 - 2 0 4.42 4 1 - 8 3.0
Total 2030 Cooccurrence 1013.05 1013.5 954 - 1074 981 11368.01 11360 11153 - 11599 11260.0
Close encounter 31.05 31.0 23 - 40 26 266.24 266 239 - 294 252.0
Strike-zone event 8.34 8.0 4 - 13 6 74.46 74 61 - 89 67.0
(1.5x draft) 8.50 8.0 4 - 14 6 73.90 74 60 - 89 66.0
Figure S18. caption

Figure S18. caption

Figure S19. caption

Figure S19. caption

Figure S20. caption

Figure S20. caption

Figure S21. caption

Figure S21. caption

Figure S22. caption

Figure S22. caption

Figure S23. caption

Figure S23. caption

Shares of interaction risk by vessel

Table S12. Share of interactions risk attributable to each vessel type, in 2019 and in 2030.
Fin whales
Humpback whales
Year Vessel Cooccurrence Close encounter Strike-zone event Cooccurrence Close encounter Strike-zone event
2019 Cargo > 180m 2 5 11 2 5 11
Fishing < 60m 13 11 6 16 12 7
Other < 40m 3 3 1 8 6 3
Other > 100m 3 5 7 7 14 21
Other > 40m 11 12 11 10 12 13
Passenger > 180m 7 17 27 3 8 13
Pleasurecraft < 40m 27 18 7 23 15 6
Sailing 11 8 3 10 8 3
Towing < 50m 14 12 16 9 9 12
Tug < 50m 10 8 11 11 10 12
2030 Cargo > 180m 2 4 6 2 4 7
Cedar LNG tanker in-heel 0 1 2 1 1 3
Cedar LNG tanker in-product 0 1 2 1 2 3
Cedar LNG tug in-heel 0 0 0 1 0 0
Cedar LNG tug in-product 0 0 0 1 0 0
Fishing < 60m 12 9 4 16 10 5
LNG Canada tanker in-heel 3 9 17 4 11 19
LNG Canada tanker in-product 3 9 15 4 11 19
LNG Canada tug in-heel 3 3 2 4 2 2
LNG Canada tug in-product 3 2 2 4 3 2
Other < 40m 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other > 100m 2 3 3 5 8 9
Other > 40m 7 7 6 7 7 6
Passenger > 180m 7 13 18 3 6 8
Pleasurecraft < 40m 24 15 4 22 12 4
Sailing 13 9 3 13 8 2
Towing < 50m 11 9 9 8 6 6
Tug < 50m 7 5 6 8 7 5
Figure S24. caption

Figure S24. caption

Figure S25. caption

Figure S25. caption

Shares of interaction risk by waterway

Table S13. Share of interactions risk attributable to each waterway, in 2019 and in 2030.
Fin whales
Humpback whales
Year Channel Cooccurrence Close encounter Strike-zone event Cooccurrence Close encounter Strike-zone event
2019 Caamano 61 60 63 14 15 17
Estevan 0 0 0 4 5 5
Campania 15 16 17 4 5 6
Squally 24 23 20 8 7 6
Whale 0 0 0 39 38 37
Wright 0 0 0 12 12 13
McKay 0 0 0 16 15 14
Verney 0 0 0 4 3 2
2030 Caamano 51 44 37 12 11 9
Estevan 0 0 0 6 7 8
Campania 13 12 10 4 4 3
Squally 35 43 52 11 13 16
Whale 1 1 1 43 46 49
Wright 0 0 0 9 8 7
McKay 0 0 0 12 10 7
Verney 0 0 0 3 2 1
Figure S26. caption

Figure S26. caption

Figure S27. caption

Figure S27. caption

Shares of interaction risk by month

Table S14. Share of interactions risk attributable to each month, in 2019 and in 2030.
Fin whales
Humpback whales
Year Month Cooccurrence Close encounter Strike-zone event Cooccurrence Close encounter Strike-zone event
2019 Jan 0 0 0 0 0 0
Feb 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mar 0 0 0 0 0 0
Apr 0 0 0 0 0 0
May 5 6 7 3 3 4
Jun 14 15 15 16 16 17
Jul 21 21 19 10 10 9
Aug 37 34 31 34 32 30
Sep 16 17 19 32 33 33
Oct 5 6 6 4 5 6
Nov 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dec 0 0 0 0 0 0
2030 Jan 0 0 0 0 0 0
Feb 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mar 0 0 0 0 0 0
Apr 0 1 1 0 0 0
May 5 5 7 3 3 3
Jun 14 15 15 16 16 16
Jul 21 21 22 11 11 11
Aug 37 33 27 37 35 35
Sep 16 17 20 28 28 28
Oct 6 6 7 4 5 6
Nov 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dec 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure S28. caption

Figure S28. caption

Figure S29. caption

Figure S29. caption

Shares of interaction risk by diel period

Table S15. Share of interactions risk attributable to each diel period, in 2019 and in 2030.
Fin whales
Humpback whales
Year Diel period Cooccurrence Close encounter Strike-zone event Cooccurrence Close encounter Strike-zone event
2019 day 89 87 78 83 79 66
night 11 13 22 17 21 34
2030 day 87 84 71 82 78 65
night 13 16 29 18 22 35
Figure S30. caption

Figure S30. caption

Figure S31. caption

Figure S31. caption

Collisions & mortalities

Table S16. Predicted rates of collision and mortality.
Fin whales
Humpback whales
Traffic scheme Event Avoidance Mean Median 95% CI 80% Conf. Mean Median 95% CI 80% Conf.
AIS 2019 Collision 0.55 0.48 0 0 - 2 0 2.74 3 0 - 5 1
~ Speed 0.77 1 0 - 2 0 3.56 3 1 - 7 2
None 1.13 1 0 - 3 0 6.02 6 2 - 10 4
Mortality 0.55 0.47 0 0 - 2 0 2.56 2 0 - 5 1
~ Speed 0.74 1 0 - 2 0 3.36 3 1 - 7 2
None 1.08 1 0 - 3 0 5.63 5 2 - 10 4
AIS 2030 Collision 0.55 0.86 1 0 - 3 0 5.07 5 2 - 9 3
~ Speed 1.33 1 0 - 3 0 6.78 7 3 - 11 5
None 1.98 2 0 - 4 1 11.24 11 6 - 17 8
Mortality 0.55 0.82 1 0 - 2 0 4.75 5 2 - 8 3
~ Speed 1.29 1 0 - 3 0 6.42 6 3 - 11 4
None 1.90 2 0 - 4 1 10.54 10 6 - 16 8
LNG Canada Collision 0.55 1.24 1 0 - 3 0 12.55 12 7 - 19 10
~ Speed 1.18 1 0 - 3 0 11.94 12 7 - 18 9
None 2.71 3 0 - 6 1 27.96 28 20 - 37 23
Mortality 0.55 1.06 1 0 - 3 0 10.72 11 6 - 16 8
~ Speed 1.00 1 0 - 3 0 10.32 10 5 - 16 8
None 2.29 2 0 - 5 1 23.78 24 16 - 32 19
Cedar LNG Collision 0.55 0.17 0 0 - 1 0 1.85 2 0 - 4 1
~ Speed 0.17 0 0 - 1 0 1.63 1 0 - 4 0
None 0.41 0 0 - 2 0 4.04 4 1 - 8 2
Mortality 0.55 0.15 0 0 - 1 0 1.56 1 0 - 4 0
~ Speed 0.15 0 0 - 1 0 1.38 1 0 - 3 0
None 0.35 0 0 - 2 0 3.37 3 1 - 7 2
Total 2030 Collision 0.55 2.27 2 0 - 5 1 19.47 19 12 - 27 16
~ Speed 2.68 3 0 - 6 1 20.36 20 13 - 28 16
None 5.10 5 2 - 9 3 43.24 43 32 - 55 37
Mortality 0.55 2.03 2 0 - 4 1 17.02 17 11 - 24 13
~ Speed 2.44 2 0 - 5 1 18.12 18 11 - 26 15
None 4.54 4 1 - 8 3 37.68 38 28 - 48 32

 

Figure S32. caption

Figure S32. caption

 

Figure S33. caption

Figure S33. caption

Table S17. Share of collision and mortality risk attributable to each vessel type, in 2019 and in 2030.
Fin whales
Humpback whales
Collision
Mortality
Collision
Mortality
Vessel 2019 2030 2019 2030 2019 2030 2019 2030
Cargo > 180m 26 11 22 11 41 14 39 14
Passenger > 180m 74 39 78 41 59 20 61 22
LNG Canada tanker in-heel 24 23 30 30
LNG Canada tanker in-product 20 19 29 27
Cedar LNG tanker in-heel 3 3 4 3
Cedar LNG tanker in-product 4 3 4 4
Figure S34. caption

Figure S34. caption

Table S18. Share of collision and mortality risk attributable to each waterway, in 2019 and in 2030.
Fin whales
Humpback whales
Collision
Mortality
Collision
Mortality
Waterway 2019 2030 2019 2030 2019 2030 2019 2030
Caamano 59 29 61 30 26 8 27 9
Estevan 0 0 0 0 8 10 7 9
Campania 25 11 23 13 15 4 13 5
Squally 15 59 15 56 7 20 8 20
Whale 0 1 1 1 26 50 26 50
Wright 0 0 0 0 18 7 17 6
McKay 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
Verney 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure S35. caption

Figure S35. caption

Table S19. Share of collision and mortality risk attributable to each month, in 2019 and in 2030.
Fin whales
Humpback whales
Collision
Mortality
Collision
Mortality
Month 2019 2030 2019 2030 2019 2030 2019 2030
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
5 4 5 5 5 5 3 4 3
6 21 18 23 18 23 17 24 18
7 19 21 16 19 9 11 10 11
8 30 27 27 29 27 36 26 36
9 21 19 23 21 29 26 29 25
10 3 7 3 7 5 5 5 5
11 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure S36. caption

Figure S36. caption

Table S20. Share of collision and mortality risk attributable to each diel period, in 2019 and in 2030.
Fin whales
Humpback whales
Collision
Mortality
Collision
Mortality
Diel period 2019 2030 2019 2030 2019 2030 2019 2030
day 80 73 83 72 69 65 71 66
night 20 27 17 28 31 35 29 34
Figure S37. caption

Figure S37. caption

Chances of certain outcome severities

Table S21. Chances of various impact severities for fin whales and humpback whales, due to present-day AIS-transmitting traffic (represented by 2019 traffic), projected AIS-transmitting traffic in 2030, projected LNG Canada traffic, projected Cedar LNG traffic, then all traffic in 2030 (previous categories combined).
AIS 2019
AIS 2030
LNG Canada
Cedar LNG
All traffic 2030
Species Chances (%) of… Coll. Mort. Coll. Mort. Coll. Mort. Coll. Mort. Coll. Mort.
Fin whale Zero 33.1 37.7 14.0 19.1 28.5 33.7 83.4 85.6 3.8 6.0
At least 1 66.9 62.3 86.0 80.9 71.5 66.3 16.6 14.4 96.2 94.0
At least 2 32.9 26.6 55.0 45.8 34.8 27.1 1.3 0.9 83.7 76.0
At least 3 11.1 7.5 27.1 20.9 13.8 9.3 0.0 0.0 65.2 52.8
At least 4 3.4 1.6 11.7 8.5 4.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 41.9 30.9
At least 5 0.6 0.2 5.2 2.6 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 24.2 16.5
Humpback whale Zero 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 25.2 0.0 0.0
At least 1 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 81.1 74.8 100.0 100.0
At least 2 99.9 99.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 52.9 43.1 100.0 100.0
At least 3 99.5 98.0 100.0 99.9 100.0 99.8 25.2 18.4 100.0 100.0
At least 4 98.2 94.9 100.0 99.8 100.0 99.2 10.5 5.9 100.0 100.0
At least 5 95.6 90.5 99.8 99.6 99.3 97.7 3.3 1.9 100.0 100.0

 

Table S22. Chances of various impact severities for fin whales and humpback whales, similar to above, now described as the chances of experiencing no more than the stated number of events.
AIS 2019
AIS 2030
Cedar LNG
LNG Canada
All traffic 2030
Species Chances (%) of… Coll. Mort. Coll. Mort. Coll. Mort. Coll. Mort. Coll. Mort.
Fin whale Zero 33.1 37.7 14.0 19.1 83.4 85.6 28.5 33.7 3.8 6.0
Max of 1 67.1 73.4 45.0 54.2 98.7 99.1 65.2 72.9 16.3 24.0
Max of 2 88.9 92.5 72.9 79.1 100.0 100.0 86.2 90.7 34.8 47.2
Max of 3 96.6 98.4 88.3 91.5 100.0 100.0 95.2 97.9 58.1 69.1
Max of 4 99.4 99.8 94.8 97.4 100.0 100.0 99.1 99.6 75.8 83.5
Max of 5 99.7 99.8 98.3 99.3 100.0 100.0 99.6 99.8 87.6 93.1
Humpback whale Zero 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 18.9 25.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Max of 1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 47.1 56.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Max of 2 0.5 2.0 0.0 0.1 74.8 81.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Max of 3 1.8 5.1 0.0 0.2 89.5 94.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0
Max of 4 4.4 9.5 0.2 0.4 96.7 98.1 0.7 2.3 0.0 0.0
Max of 5 8.9 18.9 0.4 1.3 98.9 99.5 1.0 4.4 0.0 0.0

 


Validation

Fin whales

## Melting outcomes & prepping the posterior ...
## Determining the probability of your observations ...
## Likelihood of your observation, assuming perfect detection = 0.001
## Finding the strike detection rate (SDR) that would make your observations plausible ...
## preparing L ~ SDR plot ...
## --- SDR needed for P(Observation) of 0.05 = 0.495
## --- SDR needed for P(Observation) of 0.10 = 0.355
## --- SDR needed for P(Observation) of 0.20 = 0.25
## --- SDR needed for P(Observation) of 0.55 = 0.095
Figure S38. caption

Figure S38. caption

Humpback whales

## Melting outcomes & prepping the posterior ...
## Determining the probability of your observations ...
## Likelihood of your observation, assuming perfect detection = 0
## Finding the strike detection rate (SDR) that would make your observations plausible ...
## preparing L ~ SDR plot ...
## --- SDR needed for P(Observation) of 0.05 = 0.17
## --- SDR needed for P(Observation) of 0.10 = 0.135
## --- SDR needed for P(Observation) of 0.20 = 0.09
## --- SDR needed for P(Observation) of 0.55 = 0.035
Fig S39. caption

Fig S39. caption


Mitigation measures

Scenarios 3 (rescheduling) & 4 (moratoria)

Figure S40. caption

Figure S40. caption

Figure S41. caption

Figure S41. caption

Comparison of mitigation measures to baseline

Table S23. Mortality rates predicted for fin whales and humpback whales under various mitigation scenarios.
Fin whales
Humpback whales
Baseline change
Baseline change
Category Scenario Mortalities 2019 2030 2030 (LNG) Mortalities 2019 2030 2030 (LNG)
Baseline 2019 0.74 (0-2) 0% -43% -70% 3.36 (1-7) 0% -48% -81%
2030 1.29 (0-3) 74% 0% -47% 6.42 (3-11) 91% 0% -65%
2030 (LNG) 2.44 (0-5) 230% 89% 0% 18.12 (11-26) 439% 182% 0%
Speed reductions LNG only 1.99 (0-5) 169% 54% -18% 13.3 (8-20) 296% 107% -27%
All ships < 180m 0.7 (0-2) -5% -46% -71% 6.87 (3-11) 104% 7% -62%
Daytime-only transits LNG only 1.99 (0-5) 169% 54% -18% 13.3 (8-20) 296% 107% -27%
All ships < 180m 2.28 (0-5) 208% 77% -7% 16.41 (10-23) 388% 156% -9%
LNG rescheduling One month (Aug) 1.42 (0-4) 92% 10% -42% 7.42 (3-14) 121% 16% -59%
Two months (Jul - Aug) 1.39 (0-4) 88% 8% -43% 7.31 (3-14) 118% 14% -60%
Three months (Jul - Sep) 1.36 (0-4) 84% 5% -44% 6.89 (3-13) 105% 7% -62%
LNG moratorium One month (Aug) 1.41 (0-4) 91% 9% -42% 7.33 (3-14) 118% 14% -60%
Two months (Jul - Aug) 1.37 (0-4) 85% 6% -44% 7.16 (3-13) 113% 12% -60%
Three months (Jul - Sep) 1.34 (0-3) 81% 4% -45% 6.77 (3-13) 101% 5% -63%
Figure S42. caption

Figure S42. caption


Discussion

Density estimate comparison throughout region

  # Fin whales (Gitga'at average)
  0.014 / 0.007 # eez (Wright)
## [1] 2
  0.014 / 0.002 # north coast (Wright)
## [1] 7
  0.014 / 0.003 # vancouver island (Nichol)
## [1] 4.666667

  # Fin whales (Squally Ch)
  0.031 / 0.007 # eez
## [1] 4.428571
  0.031 / 0.002 # north coast
## [1] 15.5
  0.031 / 0.003
## [1] 10.33333

  # Humpback whales (Gitga'at average)
  0.079 / 0.016 # eez (Wright)
## [1] 4.9375
  0.079 / 0.025 # north coast (Wright)
## [1] 3.16
  0.079 / 0.014 # vancouver island (Nichol)
## [1] 5.642857

  # Humpback whales (Wright Sound)
  0.0117 / 0.016 # eez
## [1] 0.73125
  0.0117 / 0.025 # north coast
## [1] 0.468
  0.0117 / 0.014
## [1] 0.8357143

Still to add

  • Tables for humpback whale photogrammetry & track analysis